Your Response

The first is true the second I am not in a position to say. But if you are getting at there appears to be a powerful subversion of democracy going on worldwide using the technique of destroying national sovereignty on which democracy depends, then I agree.

Your Response

Democracy doesn't depend on the sovereignty of the nation state. Citizens of Europe elect representatives to the European Union. In my opinion, the importance of the nation state is dwindling, but in many cases it's being replaced with larger regional institutes.

Your Response

No, it doesn't 't DEPEND on national sovereignty, but it is with national sovereignty that democracy developed and existed in its strongest form . In theory there is no reason that lather trans - national units should not be democratic. But in practice, the way they are developing indicates that whoever is responsible for driving these changes , democracy is not among their priorities . Also if trans - national bodies are going to be democratic they have no reason to subvert democracy in the nation states and the could persuade people to join them be presenting an even better model of democracy than the nation states provide . Plainly that is not happening and the general perception is that the destruction of nationhood is in part for the purpose of destroying democracy.I would prefer to stay with a system that has been proven to work than risk an idealistic political project which could fail disastrously . Take Europe. The different countries facing terrible problems would each be in a stronger position , each and individually to deal with their problems within their own national boundaries. Problems are easier to deal with providing the scale is kept within reasonable limits. As it stands the European countries are dragging each other down.

Your Response

To start with your last point first. I disagree. It's true that if individual countries in Europe still had their own currencies, the drop in their value during a recession would help their economies recover. The Euro has remained stubbornly high. But you can't ignore the economic benefits the Union has brought. Increased trade between member nations thanks to the reduction/removal of border tariffs is just one. It could also be argued that the intertwining of member nation economies has reduced the chances of wars breaking out between member states. On your other point, I partly agree. I think the power of the nation state is shifting to multinational corporations. Institutes that answer to their shareholders only. Some are so large and influential that they shape national policy. Eg: "If you raise taxes, we'll shift our base overseas and you'll be left to deal with the unemployment and the hole in your budget". "If you don't allow us to mine in that national park, we'll take our lucrative investments elsewhere". etc etc

Your Response

Your second point I completely agree with, but without national sovereignty how can these practices be controlled ?Trade in Europe is only words if many European countries end up bankrupt as a direct result of EU policies. Unemployed starving people are not bolstering trade (Greece, Spain, Portugal, Italy - and most of the Eastern European bloc)

Your Response

It will not be different. Each state has it own laws..<br />Europe is ba<x>sed on the US Federal State System. Just like how you guys may not like your President and Government, we do not like the Euro Commissioner nor Brussels.

Your Response

In Europe the laws of the nation states are constantly undermined and usurped by Brussels which is not democratically accountable. If the states had not achieved independence their wealth would have drained to Britain and your autonomy would have been subverted from the beginning. You wouldn't be an independent state now. You laws would be set aside and Brussels would be telling you what to do, imposing laws in an arbitrary fashion while draining your lifeblood in taxes. No taxation without representation remember.

Your Response

sorry,i misintrpreted your question,missed the point totally.i thought the french colonised in the south of us and california belonged to mexico but your question relates specifically to the british,my mistake.

Your Response

Thanks for clarification. That is interesting too, all history is but I was thinking along the lines if US had not gained independence they would be being rule by an unelected faceless cadre in Brussels now and wondered if any American would prefer that to their present condition, flawed as it is.

Your Response

Now and then you get novels examining what our history and present would have been if one historical event had been different - like Fatherland, what Britain would have been like if the Nazis had won.Considering US history subsequent to independence leading to it becoming one of the greatest civilisations and world powers the world has ever seen with an exemplary human rights record, one wonders if this would have happened if it had remained a colony - it's wealth in the form of taxes being leached away for the comfort of the English ruling class. A parallel history on this theme would make a great novel.